AP Editor: Do Not Describe Edward Snowden As A 'Whistleblower'

The Guardian has labeled Edward Snowden a whistleblower after the NSA contractor revealed himself Sunday as the source for several recent surveillance scoops.

But some news organization have been less quick to describe Snowden as a "whistleblower," opting instead for terms like "source" or "leaker."

Associated Press standards editor Tom Kent told staff Monday that "whether the actions exposed by Snowden and (WikiLeaks source Bradley) Manning constitute wrongdoing is hotly contested, so we should not call them whistle-blowers on our own at this point."

<...>

The AP's style guidelines are often followed in newsrooms, where discussions about Snowden -- and his motivations -- are surely taking place today among editors and reporters. The full memo is below:

Colleagues, With two secret-spilling stories in the news -- NSA/Snowden and Wikileaks/Manning -- let's review our use of the term "whistle-blower" (hyphenated, per the Stylebook).

A whistle-blower is a person who exposes wrongdoing. It's not a person who simply asserts that what he has uncovered is illegal or immoral. Whether the actions exposed by Snowden and Manning constitute wrongdoing is hotly contested, so we should not call them whistle-blowers on our own at this point. (Of course, we can quote other people who call them whistle-blowers.)

A better term to use on our own is "leakers." Or, in our general effort to avoid labels and instead describe behavior, we can simply write what they did: they leaked or exposed or revealed classified information.

Sometimes whether a person is a whistle-blower can be established only some time after the revelations, depending on what wrongdoing is confirmed or how public opinion eventually develops.

4. There is a WH petition to pardon.

5. He's no Karen Silkwood

that's for sure. He didn't expose any illegal activities, corruption or abuse. He doesn't like a legal policy and decided that the classified info he was stupidly entrusted with should be made public. You know -- because the government having classified info is just one step away from tyranny

I'm still pissed someone with his very limited background had such access. I know people who went to some great schools and posses strong skills, yet struggle to find decent employment, let alone a job that pays six figures.

7. Collecting that much information chills the exercise of

constitutional rights like association, speech, press, just to name a few. It may well eventually be deemed illegal.

The government can subpoena pen registers, but they are now doing it broadly and if what Snowden says is true, without probable cause and in fact without any reason at all to collect them. That may shill the right to freedom of the press if they are doing it to journalists (and judging from the Fox News scandal) they may well be doing just that.